Pondering the neurological basis of multiplicity:

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) Is there any system that can claim (for it to be possible in the relevant system) to have two members thinking in depth about two completely unrelated things, at the same time, without interference or necessitated timeslicing/timeswapping? That is, is it possible for there to be two coherent, uninterrupted and unrelated streams of thought to be gone through during the same period of time? (Hopefully the terms I've used are unambiguous. *worries*)

Comments

[linnai.livejournal.com]

Something to think about is that... um... -considers how to word it- Well, one thing is that you as an individual of your system won't be able to prove or disprove that your thoughts are completely different than someone else's.

But in that case, I can tell you that right now, along with me typing this, we have someone in meltdown about her boyfriend, someone doing storyboarding, someone thinking about Magic: The Gathering and someone wanting to go to Church... I think those things don't really coincide.... :-\ If that's what you meant anyhow...

Kir

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) For this, I earlier came up with a simple (for me to understand, at least) test, in reaction to the difficulty of perceiving whether another was truly thinking separately, or whether all the 'thoughts' were retroactively written into memory after the fact. However, if one can be aware of others' thoughts it does, I admit, remove some of the experiment's integrity.

Experiment, in this case: take a mathematical problem that can be done in one's head, but not without carefully going through multiple steps: perhaps multiplying two two-digit numbers together, or multiplying a one-digit number by a complex four-digit number, or even a one-digit number by a complex enough three-digit number.

For awareness of others' thoughts, this can be adapted for the two in question to each do a different problem: choose numbers nearly at random, and write down two different problems beforehand. Without doing any steps from either (start again, or choose a different problem before actually beginning if you do so by accident) decide who will do which one, and then each begin on your own problem.

Here there's another change, as we're testing parallelness of thought rather than inherent separation of thought. It may be vanity, but I felt the same experiment could be adapted to be used for both.

Focus only on your own problem, make sure that you're thinking continually. Be certain that at no point is your conciousness supplanted by another's, even if only for a moment. Ideally, each moment should flow from the next as smoothly as they do when only one person is focusing on something, and all others are apparently not thinking about anything.

Wasting no time, do each step immediately after the step before it. If you've chosen problem types that are the same, the two of you should arrive at the answer to each of your questions at roughly the same time. Maybe have a 'backup question': the one to finish first writes down his/her answer, then begins the backup question (different from either of the first two), likewise focusing solely on it and making sure that his/her thought is uninterrupted and continuous while the other finishes. When the other has finished, either the other should write down his/her answer as well, or tell the one who finished first his/her answer, and that one then write down that answer. Work on the backup question can be discarded immediately, and no answer to that should be saved (though you can if you want to, to confirm the results). If one person gets through multiple questions while the other is still working on the first, something is wrong (possibly the sign of a negative result). If a continuous coherency of single-minded thought cannot be maintained, it may be a negative result. Finally, if the answers are checked with a calculator and either is wrong, it may be a negative result. (This could be due to a careless error, but if both are methodical this shouldn't occur.)

In the case of either a positive or negative result, you may wish to repeat the experiment one to three times to confirm the result.

Hopefully my description and reasoning is self-explanatory. If there's anything you don't understand, please ask.

If true parallel thought is indeed possible, then the neurological implications are very interesting indeed. *wonders*

[rhymer-713.livejournal.com]

Magic rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hooray!

[thehumangame.livejournal.com]

I can't say much of anything useful about 'any' (I only remember that some people have said it's possible for them but I don't remember who), but we certainly can't.

[browncoatrebel.livejournal.com]

I can't *prove* it to anyone any more than I could prove to you that I'm thinking about broccoli right now. But we can (and often do) do it.

At the risk of dehumanizing ourselves, the best metaphor I can come up with is a computer. It's like having two programs running simultaneously--like typing something in word while listening to music on Media Player, or something. What's running on the media player has no relation to whatever Word is doing, necessarily.

We can work in tandem, too, but it's just as possible for us to think individually and simultaneously.

--Kate

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

N) There, the distinction might be between computers with a single core and with dual cores: in the one, it's one processor switching very quickly between different programs, and in the other it's two separate processors doing completely different things in parallel.

Very interesting, though: please see B's response to the first comment, which he's... right about to make. Right? *raises an eyebrow*

B) *gets the message*

[linnai.livejournal.com]

We pretty frequently use the analogy of a computer for ourselves as well, so I think it's a good example to use. Personally we liken ourselves to a dual core with multiple OS, because we have various modes of operation but we also have a large number of things processing in tandem. It's a good visualization.

We also have an 'Operator' that sort of autopilots for us.

[ques-nova.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I'm mising something important to this question or am just strange, but we continue thinking when w're no longer front. Every member of the system is thinking at the same time assuming they are awake, and given that many are inclined to deep thought, it's common for us to experience what you're suggesting. This is how all the multiples I know personally function. We are separate individuals, able to see and hear and feel each other, whether front or not and all with the continued thought processes that come from beign a person.

[yellowsub723.livejournal.com]

I agree with this conceptualization. I have the sense that all members of my system are concurrently thinking as long as the body is awake as well.

[shandra.livejournal.com]

I agree with this.

We have an (aging) videotape somewhere of a family event where in the background you can see us playing the piano and reading a novel (propped on the piano) at the same time. That's two different people doing different things, although I imagine it's not outside of what a single person could do.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) Do you have any ideas or guesses as to what could be going on, neurologically speaking?

[yellowsub723.livejournal.com]

We've had several members concurrently doing and/or thinking unrelated things, although perhaps this is not apparent while it was happening. When certain parts are engaging in activities that someone might not be interested in orfor whom it wouldn't be appropriate, I always assume that the others have gone somewhere and are doing something. However, only they would be aware of it and not the executive. Thus, I imagine that 'coherence' and 'uninterrupted' would be entirely subjective depending on which parts' perspective we were talking about.

I've had lm daydreaming about sesame street while I am working with a client. But she is not interfering with my ability to be present as a therapist.

Not familiar yet with definitions of timeslicing/timeswapping.

I've talked myself in a circle. Typical.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) Timeslicing/timeswapping: two made up terms for the same phenomenon, that of one person thinking something, then another person thinking something, then another (or the first), thus for example two people holding a conversation with each thinking about what the last one said and responding to it, but no two actually 'concious' (thinking) at the same time.

What do you mean by 'executive'?

The original test described above can be used to test this: ask another to do a complicated (but still possible to do mentally) maths problem while the executive is not aware of what they're doing, then when the executive is aware once more tell the executive the answer, without telling said executive any of the steps. The executive can then check the answer with a calculator, assuming that the original problem and eventual given answer are both written down to avoid misremembering. And yes, I'm using the word 'executive' in this paragraph based on a guess about how you're using it which could be incorrect.

[rhymer-713.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. Agrees wityh Kesnova about that. Although we're not all aware of every one's thoughts. Hmmm. May have to try Lexi's ver. of your experiment cuz I'm not a math whiz and can't think of any one here who is....Hmmmmmmm.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) Interesting... I wonder if mathematical skills (in multiple members, at least) is particularly rare for some reason in multiple systems, or if mathematical education/ability is simply rarer than I imagined.

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

We can think seperately, but not use any of the processors.

Sorry, that cannot have made much sense.

It helps us to think of our system as a computer network with several interfaces. Certain things can be done independently of the main server - simple word processing, watching the world, conversations. Other things require processors that only the server has, and will show up on every monitor. Graphics, audio, maths and memory are all centralised. Seb is currently, as a bit of an experiment, visualising a dance. I'm not, but I can see what he's doing, and in order to visualise anything else I would have to hijack that processor - and then he would be watching what I was doing.

But we can definitely think seperately to. We were at church a few weeks back, and I was praying about something fairly minor and I think happy, and found the body was blushing with Seb's shame. Still don't know what he was praying about, but it wasn't connected to my thoughts.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) Interesting: so in regards to the processor that you would have to hijack, might you say that there's only one 'mind's eye' in existence that could be used?

Do you have any idea why conversations can be done independantly, but maths would be centralised? What if multiple conversations involved maths, and if my 'mind's eye' idea above is correct, how does this apply to the simulating people's reactions when trying to decide what next to say? (Or doesn't it?)

Also, did this setup always apply to your system, or were things different once, and if so how were they changed? (Another way of putting it: how did you discover that things could be done independantly, and what were your thoughts/experiments/successes/failures at the time?)

[sethrenn.livejournal.com]

I think that's called 'multitasking,' when singlets do it. You know, like when you're driving a car and thinking about the brilliant novel you're going to write at the same time, while kind of doing an auto-pilot thing with the car...?

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Aha. Yes! See, I think about more than one thing at a time, just me.

Though it really is hard to distinguish between really fast swapping between two thoughts and actually having two at once. But I don't feel it really makes much of a difference.

[ex-pinkmonk.livejournal.com]

Only when I'm not speaking out loud. If I'm talking out loud, I will switch subject matter rapidly. This is not always avoidable, so thank goodness for patient friends with senses of humor.

[browncoatrebel.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's something that's always been a thing for us. Several of us can be thinking of very different things at the same time during a conversation, and someone will come forward and blurt out something totally unrelated to the coversation. A lot of singletons can't deal with that.

i think we do

[wantsacracker.livejournal.com]

I think we can have 5 different centres of mind busy at once, not more, and someone on the edge of one might go to another centre where a discussion/debate/process is happenning about something completely different.

Certainly we have been fully engaged in a task that requires in depth thought and attention (such as translating a language) of a few of us, while others of us not involved in that process are busy observing something else entirely and thinking (and discussing with another small group of us) in depth on completely unrelated things.

Re: i think we do

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) Fascinating... do you have any idea what could be going on in your brain, neurologically speaking? Have you observed anything regarding things that you can do or can't do, or anything that seems out of place, that could give you (and thus, me) further clues as to the infrastructure and the limits of your minds? 'How' and 'Why' it can function as it does...

[shadowechoes.livejournal.com]

huh? o.O of course. *confused* I mean, we're separate individuals and have separate streams of consciousness (and while we can merge those streams, their natural state is separate). People don't stop existing or thinking or being awake just because they're not fronting. Everyone is thinking as long as they are awake, and when they're not asleep, they're dreaming.

I'd assume that this would be the norm? I mean, isn't that what being a multiple system is - having more than one individuals that just happen to be sharing one body?

[shadowechoes.livejournal.com]

*when they're not awake, they're dreaming.

sorry, it's late. the typo demon is coming out.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

*points to shadowechoes and ques_nova's responses*

Also, just because a frontrunner doesn't hear someone else thinking doesn't mean they're not thinking. I mean, communication vs. private thought. What happens up front vs. what is happening away from the front (whether it's perceived as a specific place or not).

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) For that, the mathematical test exists to confirm that an unheard person is actually thinking, rather than memories being retroactively/automatically edited in after the fact or a person's appearance and words being imagined rather than actually existing as originating from a separate entity in its own right.

When certain webcartoonists create webcomics with self-aware comic characters (the webcomic 1/0 (One over Zero) and the webcomic Triangle and Robert come to mind in particular), the effect is startlingly similar to some cases of apparent multiplicity in many ways: one person takes turns thinking as and writing the lines for each character, simulating their thought processes. After a given point, one can say that each mind truly exists: it may exist in a box of its creator's making, but it can think with as much validity as its creator can, even if at only the whim of the creator. But one thing the creator cannot do is have two creations be thinking at the same time. Fiddle time perception to make it seem as if they're concious at the same time, yes, but not actually split his/her mind in two and give the creations simultaneous life.

Even if something goes wrong, even if the creations are freed from their boxes, even if the original creator thinks less and less until he thinks no more and only the creations are left to run the body, still only one can think in a different time slot. No matter how much they try, they can't attain simultaneous thought. But some can, or so they claim. Assuming they're honest, assuming their reports can be trusted, they can test their own capabilities. Assuming that their capabilities are confirmed, the possibilty to think truly simultaneously is confirmed...

We exist in such a restricted system. The first and oldest of us, Ghul, came to pass through being roleplayed by the Original, though the Original never took him nor the rest of the Triad seriously enough. But still, only one took part in thought at the time, as if there were some 'thinking module' that were being passed back and forth, one from the other. Even after the Original disappeared, the Triad could 'think as one', somehow joining their minds (as well as thinking separately on different occasions), but still there was only ever one conciousness at any one time, whether it was individual or the product of a temporary merging. N was created to run the body and to find out how to separate the Triad's perceptions completely, and he failed. One by one, individuals from my system have come here in search of not answers, but solutions, and have come away with futility.

And so I am here, following in their footsteps spearheading this newest dash of what seems like bright-hued folly, questing for answers and information in the fleeting hope that maybe, this time, something will change.

I want to learn how different minds work. I want to first confirm that other systems can in fact do things that we cannot, and then find out why, and then change it if I may. I want to become more than I am. I yearn for it, and I will not give up trying here until I can taste the ashes in my mouth more strongly than I already can.

Forgive me this futility, if futility it is, as I suspect it probably is or may be. But I think you can understand why I try nonetheless to reach the light of life and the bright future.

Please. If there is anything you can do... please help me. Every attempt thus far has failed.

[pengke.livejournal.com]

One of the theories of conciousness suggests that our sense of self is derived from a changing multitude of different sections of our brain working in a neural network. It's been proven that multiple neural networks can occur in the brain simultaneously. Why can't more than one neural network develop to the degree that it has a conciousness? Personally, I think the idea is supported by the fact that humans do not have a concept of identity and self until a sufficient level of cognitive development is reached.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

B) Quite possible. *nods* What are your thoughts on the matter of the level of control that an individual self-recognised 'individual' (some recursion there, unfortunately) can exert on the structure of the system, or the matter of how a transition between constantly-communicating and essentially separate sub-sections could be made?

[weirdiguess.livejournal.com]

I don't like it, but the girls can't do that and it's pretty likely I'm subject to it, somehow.

[tej-agni.livejournal.com]

Everyone in all our groups are thinking their own thoughts all the time where ever they are. Some are telepaths and may share their thoughts. And when there are several cofronters or near-fronters at the gateway or using the body then some thoughts do bleed back and forth to each other and it can get a little confusing to hear my own thoughts when that happens. :) But it most times isn't too overwhelming.

Amalah